I am trying to estimate the multivariate effective sample size of an MCMC posterior sample with 8 parameters. For that, I am using the function multiESS in the R package mcmcse. One of the arguments of this function is batch size, the choice of which significantly influences the estimation of the multivariate ESS.
User @Greenparker gave incredibly helpful answers to previous questions regarding multiESS. Answering a question specifically about the choice of batch size, she suggests the following:
A reasonable thing to do is to look at how many significant [autocorrelation] lags you have. If you have large lags, then choose a larger batch size, and if you have small lags choose a smaller batch size.
I have really small autocorrelation lags. In fact, I have no significant autocorrelation lag at all, possibly because I set a rather high thinning interval of 10,000 samples. Here's how my autocorrelation plot looks like for one parameter (all the others look the same):
Following @Greenparker's advice, I would think setting the batch size to the lowest possible value (batch size = 1) is a good idea. However, in the same post, she also notes that:
If [batch size]=1, then the batch means will be exactly the Markov chain, and your batch means estimator will estimate Λ and not Σ.
So, on the one hand, I understand that I should use a low batch size if I have low autocorrelation lags. On the other, there seems to be disadvantages in using too low a batch size (although it is not clear to me if estimating Λ and not Σ is something that compromises the estimation of multivariate ESS).
My question is: should I set the batch size to 1 when I have no significant autocorrelation at all? If not, what would be a more recommendable value?

Error in mcse.multi(chain, ...) : Either decrease r or increase n. I assume this is because n is below 1? – jocateme Jun 19 '20 at 14:25bwheneverb == 0, and then rounds downb. In the case of my chain,bis calculated as 0.23. It is not transformed into 1 (sinceb != 0) and then rounded down to 0. If the intention is to boundbto be above or equal to 1, this would work better if the imputation occurred wheneverb < 1. Or, alternatively, if the imputation came after the rounding. Could that be the case? – jocateme Jun 19 '20 at 15:11